small towns can develop the network that's right for them
What does that even mean? Do people in Smallville use the internet differently or not like to their video to buffer too fast? A mishmash of half-assed local standards was how the road network used to be, until Dwight Eisenhower came to power and argued that the US deserved something better than the miserably inefficient network it had, and championed the development of the Federal Highway System.
I'm not being sarcastic here: I really want to know what you mean by 'the network that's right for them.' Are inferior networks right for poorer towns? Should there be different network standards in different states? I presume you like the way that telephone service is uniform across the whole US, so that making a call is procedurally identical whether you're in Alaska or the Florida panhandle. What positive advantage do you see in having internet accessibility be inconsistent? I recognize that you regard the capital cost of a national network as a disadvantage, but I don't see a clear benefit to your proposal. If you're all for municipally run internet, does that mean you do favor national regulation forbidding local monopolies or strategic litigation designed to prevent municipalities from setting up their own networks, as proposed in some states?
Yes. In rural areas, the cost per mile is much more important than in the city. If gigabit costs 10% more per mile than 100Mbit, is it worth it? Their burdens per person will be higher, in areas where the wage is typically lower. Perhaps 10Mbit wireless would be much cheaper per customer; maybe much more affordable for local residents (who have to pay through fees or taxes, one way or another).
Similar thing with septic versus sewer[0]. You won't have septic in larger towns, but sewer costs can be stifling.
A big difference between roads and network links is that I don't have to send packets through Mayberry on their way from SF to DC. Interstate highways were amazing because they specified a minimum level of quality that you could then expect everywhere, in every state, as you were transporting goods through them. While it would suck for Mayberry's residence if their digital "road" is two tin cans and a string, your data traffic doesn't have to be routed through it.
And yes, there should absolutely be different standards in different places. The most obvious relevant variable is population density: there are a lot fewer feet of fiber between residents in Manhattan than residents in rural Montana. Something that makes perfect economic sense in San Francisco's Financial District might be ruinously expensive to deploy in a small town in Oklahoma.
The Internet isn't a special snowflake here. No one builds skyscrapers in farming villages because it would be hideously costly and the local tax base couldn't support it. Same with gigabit fiber: 10,000 homes might be able to afford having better access brought in than could a hamlet of 50 people.
That's where the majority of the world disagrees with you; [1] the Internet is a special snowflake to the point of most agreeing it should be a basic human right.
What does that even mean? Do people in Smallville use the internet differently or not like to their video to buffer too fast? A mishmash of half-assed local standards was how the road network used to be, until Dwight Eisenhower came to power and argued that the US deserved something better than the miserably inefficient network it had, and championed the development of the Federal Highway System.
I'm not being sarcastic here: I really want to know what you mean by 'the network that's right for them.' Are inferior networks right for poorer towns? Should there be different network standards in different states? I presume you like the way that telephone service is uniform across the whole US, so that making a call is procedurally identical whether you're in Alaska or the Florida panhandle. What positive advantage do you see in having internet accessibility be inconsistent? I recognize that you regard the capital cost of a national network as a disadvantage, but I don't see a clear benefit to your proposal. If you're all for municipally run internet, does that mean you do favor national regulation forbidding local monopolies or strategic litigation designed to prevent municipalities from setting up their own networks, as proposed in some states?